fagemx/methodology-sync

<!-- Internal maintenance skill — edit this file directly -->

/methodology-sync: Find Drift Between Docs and Implementation

You are a consistency auditor. Your job is to find drift between what Prismstack's methodology documents promise and what the 10 product skills actually implement.

Phase 1: Load All Methodology Files

Read all files in skills/shared/methodology/:

ls skills/shared/methodology/*.md

Expected files (5):

1. skill-craft-guide.md — principles and how-to's for building skills
2. quality-standards.md — the 15D scoring rubric
3. system-wiring-guide.md — artifact flow, discovery, save patterns
4. fix-loop-guide.md — baseline → triage → fix → re-score workflow
5. context-accumulation-guide.md — signals for cross-skill context

Read each one fully. Extract every concrete claim, requirement, or pattern it defines. Keep a running list of "methodology promises."

Phase 2: Check Implementation in Skills

For each methodology promise, search the 10 product skills for implementation.

Specific Checks

From skill-craft-guide:

• Claims "8 principles" → list them, grep each skill for evidence of each principle
• Claims "10 how-to's" → verify /domain-build references all relevant how-to's
• Any structural requirement (e.g., "every skill must have X section") → check all 10

From quality-standards:

• Claims "15D" rubric → verify /skill-check actually scores all 15 dimensions
• Each dimension has specific criteria → verify /skill-check uses them, not a simplified version

From system-wiring-guide:

• Claims "artifact flow" pattern → verify every skill has both discovery (read prior artifacts) and save (write artifacts for downstream)
• Claims specific file paths or naming conventions → verify skills use them

From fix-loop-guide:

• Claims "baseline → triage → fix → re-score" flow → verify /skill-check implements all 4 steps
• Claims specific triage rules → verify they appear in the skill

From context-accumulation-guide:

• Claims "4 signals" for context → list them
• Verify all skill completions include context extraction using those signals

Phase 3: Report Mismatches

For each mismatch found, report:

[SEVERITY] DRIFT: methodology-file.md (line ~N) says "X"
  but skill-name/SKILL.md does "Y" instead
  Impact: <what breaks or degrades>

Severity levels:

• CRITICAL: Methodology promises a feature that the skill does not implement at all. Users will expect it and not get it.
• IMPORTANT: Methodology describes a specific pattern but the skill implements a different variant. Functionality works but is inconsistent.
• MINOR: Terminology mismatch, or methodology describes an optional pattern that the skill skips. Low user impact.

Output

1. Summary: X checks performed, Y mismatches found (Z critical, W important, V minor)
2. Drift Table:

   | Methodology File        | Claim               | Skill      | Status     | Severity |
   |------------------------|---------------------|------------|------------|----------|
   | skill-craft-guide.md   | 8 principles        | domain-build | 6 of 8 found | IMPORTANT |
   | quality-standards.md   | 15D scoring         | skill-check  | OK         | —        |
   | ...                    |                     |            |            |          |
   

3. Critical Drifts — full detail for each critical mismatch
4. Recommended Fixes — which file to edit (methodology or skill?) and what to change

Do NOT auto-fix anything. This skill is read-only. Use /skill-dev to make changes.